User Controls
Satan II missiles
-
2021-05-31 at 2:01 AM UTCSerious analysis of Satan II missiles to best US missiles required, fuck my shit up Aldra
-
2021-05-31 at 2:42 AM UTCSARMAT is essentially just a delivery system, it's meant to carry 10+ AVANGARD gliders. The AVANGARD gliders have a range of 6000km or so, so the SARMAT itself doesn't need to get anywhere near static missile defences so long as it can find a clear path to its target.
The SARMAT is a huge ballistic missile, and even though it has its own countermeasures it'll be a lot easier to shoot down than the gliders it carries. I don't think it's possible for ABM defences like THAAD to shoot it down because they can only engage ballistic missiles in the terminal phase, and the SARMAT isn't meant to strike targets directly. You'd have to use something like regular PATRIOT or AEGIS systems or an aircraft intercept along its flight path.
There's no current defence against gliders flying at mach 25 so it'd have to be stopped before it gets within range to release them, and they'd only be used in a nuclear exchange so you can bet there will be more than one coming from multiple directions. ECM and interference is a bit of a wild card but as I understand it, Russia is at least a generation ahead of the rest of the world in that field given how effective it's been in Syria, but it only takes one trickThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-05-31 at 10:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra SARMAT is essentially just a delivery system, it's meant to carry 10+ AVANGARD gliders. The AVANGARD gliders have a range of 6000km or so, so the SARMAT itself doesn't need to get anywhere near static missile defences so long as it can find a clear path to its target.
The SARMAT is a huge ballistic missile, and even though it has its own countermeasures it'll be a lot easier to shoot down than the gliders it carries. I don't think it's possible for ABM defences like THAAD to shoot it down because they can only engage ballistic missiles in the terminal phase, and the SARMAT isn't meant to strike targets directly. You'd have to use something like regular PATRIOT or AEGIS systems or an aircraft intercept along its flight path.
There's no current defence against gliders flying at mach 25 so it'd have to be stopped before it gets within range to release them, and they'd only be used in a nuclear exchange so you can bet there will be more than one coming from multiple directions. ECM and interference is a bit of a wild card but as I understand it, Russia is at least a generation ahead of the rest of the world in that field given how effective it's been in Syria, but it only takes one trick
Not only am I not disappointed, but the succinctness and completeness has left me satisfied. -
2021-05-31 at 12:26 PM UTCI love aldra's dirty talk.
-
2021-05-31 at 1:31 PM UTCHey he is a classic nigga who knows his shit.
How do the US's missiles compare and in what way? Could Russia respond better to a nuclear attack from the US than the US could to Russia?
What is the situation with the Chinese? -
2021-05-31 at 1:42 PM UTC
-
2021-05-31 at 2:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ There's one way: 100-mile-wide EMP bursts strong enough to get through the shielding on the gliders.
I have no idea whether they're electromagnetically protected, but you'd have to fire off a huge EMP above the hardware you're supposedly protecting at the exact right moment and you'd still have to deal with huge shards of metal flying at you at like 30,000km/h. Because regular anti-missile defences are useless here, there's no reason to use decoys like a traditional MIRV. if you fail to intercept the carrier missile, you have to deal with 10 or so armed nuclear gliders that could land anywhere in a 6000km radius. -
2021-05-31 at 3:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by Chairman Takeshi Kaga How do the US's missiles compare and in what way? Could Russia respond better to a nuclear attack from the US than the US could to Russia?
What is the situation with the Chinese?
1. In terms of tech, submarines and SLBMs are currently the most effective link in the US nuclear triad. Because Russia is at least a generation or two ahead in terms of missile and anti-missile tech, both long-range bombers and (non-hypersonic) ballistic missiles have a significantly lowered effectiveness. The same goes for carriers and other forms of power-projection; if they come close enough to shore to launch bombers or missiles they come within range of hypersonic ASBMs like the ONYX/BASTION complexes. Submarines on the other hand can pop up close enough to shore and fire off a fusillade of short-range ballistic missiles before the other side has a chance to react - it's why there's been such an argument between the US and Russia over TBMs in Europe; even cold-war era hardware can hit before being detected at that range.
Practically though, there's no such thing as a winnable nuclear exchange. There have been factions on both sides of the cold war that thought it could be done but more sane voices have prevailed so far - both countries have launch platforms (and in all likelihood, hidden failsafe devices) over such a wide area that there's no way to guarantee complete annihilation of an enemy's nuclear capability, and modern anti-missile systems are nowhere near capable of 100% interception.
2. China is fucking weird, they keep coming out with announcements about new military tech and doctrine and half of it ends up being completely made up. They talked about having those hypersonic glide vehicles years ago but haven't actually demonstrated their own hypersonic missile designs yet (the glide vehicles are a lot more complex than that).
I dunno, from what I can glean they don't seem to care too much about the latest nuclear weapons tech so long as they have them as a deterrent - which is a sensible position (at least to the extent that the weapons remain an effective deterrent, ie. they aren't rendered obselete by new anti-missile tech), considering the moment someone uses a nuclear weapon now the MAD doctrine is over and the hard line between conventional and nuclear conflict dissolvesThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-05-31 at 3:18 PM UTCA nuclear-generated EMP blast of enough energy and size should be enough to get through any faraday cage. If it even has cracks in it, like access panels or spent fuel vents, that would be enough access to incapacitate its internal electrical components. The prime location to ignite the EMP blast would be the point where the gliders initially separate from the ICBM.
-
2021-05-31 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra 1. In terms of tech, submarines and SLBMs are currently the most effective link in the US nuclear triad. Because Russia is at least a generation or two ahead in terms of missile and anti-missile tech, both long-range bombers and (non-hypersonic) ballistic missiles have a significantly lowered effectiveness. The same goes for carriers and other forms of power-projection; if they come close enough to shore to launch bombers or missiles they come within range of hypersonic ASBMs like the ONYX/BASTION complexes. Submarines on the other hand can pop up close enough to shore and fire off a fusillade of short-range ballistic missiles before the other side has a chance to react - it's why there's been such an argument between the US and Russia over TBMs in Europe; even cold-war era hardware can hit before being detected at that range.
Practically though, there's no such thing as a winnable nuclear exchange. There have been factions on both sides of the cold war that thought it could be done but more sane voices have prevailed so far - both countries have launch platforms (and in all likelihood, hidden failsafe devices) over such a wide area that there's no way to guarantee complete annihilation of an enemy's nuclear capability, and modern anti-missile systems are nowhere near capable of 100% interception.
2. China is fucking weird, they keep coming out with announcements about new military tech and doctrine and half of it ends up being completely made up. They talked about having those hypersonic glide vehicles years ago but haven't actually demonstrated their own hypersonic missile designs yet (the glide vehicles are a lot more complex than that).
I dunno, from what I can glean they don't seem to care too much about the latest nuclear weapons tech so long as they have them as a deterrent - which is a sensible position (at least to the extent that the weapons remain an effective deterrent, ie. they aren't rendered obselete by new anti-missile tech), considering the moment someone uses a nuclear weapon now the MAD doctrine is over and the hard line between conventional and nuclear conflict dissolves
Man I love you.
I want you to know that I am being genuine, I know a lot of my trolling is around never ever ever ever saying what I actually think but this is totally 100% heartfelt.
I am glad that you exist and that you are out there. I like you a lot on a human to human level. I think you're a funny and intelligent person. Even if I don't agree with you on everything, I like talking to you and hearing your view on stuff.
You're a champ bro.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-05-31 at 7:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A nuclear-generated EMP blast of enough energy and size should be enough to get through any faraday cage. If it even has cracks in it, like access panels or spent fuel vents, that would be enough access to incapacitate its internal electrical components. The prime location to ignite the EMP blast would be the point where the gliders initially separate from the ICBM.
Ok retard set off a nuke to stop the nuke -
2021-05-31 at 8:02 PM UTC
-
2021-05-31 at 8:29 PM UTC
-
2021-05-31 at 8:45 PM UTCAldra doesn't know how to respond to affection and that's ok. I would not change a single thing about Aldra.
-
2021-05-31 at 8:46 PM UTC
-
2021-05-31 at 11:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A nuclear-generated EMP blast of enough energy and size should be enough to get through any faraday cage. If it even has cracks in it, like access panels or spent fuel vents, that would be enough access to incapacitate its internal electrical components. The prime location to ignite the EMP blast would be the point where the gliders initially separate from the ICBM.
at that range the heat and shockwave of the blast would have physically destroyed the faraday cage and whatever big bubba cages there are before the emp could do its thing. -
2021-05-31 at 11:33 PM UTC
-
2021-05-31 at 11:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny at that range the heat and shockwave of the blast would have physically destroyed the faraday cage and whatever big bubba cages there are before the emp could do its thing.
The range of the EMP blast would far exceed the range of the nuclear energy involved. Science 101. -
2021-06-01 at 12 AM UTC
-
2021-06-01 at 12:06 AM UTC
